Wednesday, May 30, 2012

"IT'S no surprise that the ABC's Media Watch has no bite when it comes to scrutinising the national broadcaster's own news coverage. On Monday night it lost its bark as well. Host Jonathan Holmes fell silent over an issue that he bungled badly the week before -- the ABC's erroneous report in June last year that: "Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security."

The sensationalised story, which followed up a report in The Canberra Times, gained such wide airplay on radio, on television and online that it was picked up internationally by The Guardian and the scientific journal Nature, fuelling a perception that climate sceptics are dangerous fanatics.

The problem was that a crucial element of the story was wrong, which the ABC now concedes -- sort of -- in a "clarification" buried deep on its website. It is yet to correct the record on radio or television....We expect him to correct his mistakes next Monday."

Apparently "Media Watch tries to monitor some of the major media outlets but there's no way our small team can keep track of all the media's crazy and unethical behaviour or even all the stories that are just plain wrong.We rely on tip-offs from our audience for many of our stories. If you know something about the media that we should know, please fill out the form below."

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

We leave the final word on this to the Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who is reported today in The Australian saying: "For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story."

Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.

Those corrections again...

ANU emailsPosted Thu May 24, 2012 4:13pm AESTNews Online: On May 11, the ABC reported on the release under FOI of a number of emails relating to climate change received by staff at the ANU. The story should have made clear that the emails were found to be abusive, but NOT to constitute death threats or clear threats of violence. However, the ANU maintains that staff have received death threats in other communications not released under the FOI action. The story has been clarified and updated. View the report.

Editor’s Note (May 25): Questions have been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat. This story also has been amended to clarify that the specific emails released under FOI contain abuse, but not overt threats.

FOI emails reveal abuse of climate scientistsUPDATE (May 21): The release of these emails under Freedom of Information followed reports last year (see related stories above) that ANU scientists had received death threats. Climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat.

Editor's note (May 24):This story has been amended to clarify that the specific emails released under FOI were found by the Privacy Commissioner to contain abuse, but not overt threats.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

The Australian add to their reports about corrections ABC have made to its recent reporting about the release of "death threat" emails from ANU following an FOI.ABC issues correction on ANU scientists email threats claim
Here's another correction not covered in the Australian's report, from an article that went missing but has now returned...Climate scientist abuse emails releasedEditor’s Note (May 25): Questions have been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat. This story also has been amended to clarify that the specific emails released under FOI contain abuse, but not overt threats.

The Australian has a series of articles in today's paper that examines the deleterious effects of "Groupthink" at the ABC.

In the first Chris Kenny delves into the way Groupthink has spread its tentacles through the ABC. There is a bright light however, exemplified by ABC reporters who work outside ABC's inner city Ultimo and Melbourne latte lines.

"Critics see the problem at the ABC as too much news judgment, opinion and perspective flowing in the same direction on a range of key issues. The ABC tends to favour an alarmist view on climate change, open borders approach on asylum-seekers, rights over responsibilities in indigenous affairs, antagonism towards Christianity but tolerance for Islam, reverence for the UN, animus towards the US, enthusiasm for gay marriage, suspicion about business and development, and deference to the green agenda. "

"Yet it can be argued that this "collection of low-lying tribes" - as one senior ABC journalist describes the organisation - acts as a counter to groupthink, ensuring that somewhere in the vast empire, always, dissent can flourish. And few would argue, for instance, that ABC regional radio stations aren't more entwined with their communities."

This blog gets a mention in the second article by Legal Affairs editor Chris Merritt. that discusses further issues surrounding reporting of the ANU "Death Threat" emails.

"THE only uncontested lesson from the furore over the ABC's coverage of climate change is this: those inside the national broadcaster see the world very differently from their external critics."

"Everything else is the subject of deeply held views that are as polarised as they are sincere.

Alan Sunderland, head of policy at ABC news, gives every indication of being a reasonable man. But so does Marc Hendrickx, who runs the blog ABC News Watch. He has been left dumbfounded at what he sees as the national broadcaster's inability to accept that when it comes to climate change, the organisation is riddled with groupthink that diminishes its journalism on this subject.

Even when the ABC qualifies earlier reports on climate change - as it did this week - it does so in a way that Hendrickx believes is grudging and inadequate."

Friday, May 25, 2012

ABC Audience and consumer affairs provided the following comment in reply to a complaint I made on 10 May at 9:21pm about missing news of the privacy commissioners findings on ANU death threat emails "Audience and Consumer Affairs does not consider there is a case to correct the stories." I received the reply from your Mr Maley at 10.39am on May 11.

Mr Maley stated in his email that he had consulted ABC News "In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News." However at May 11, 2012 09:06:07am, over an hour before his reply to me, ABC News posted the following story:FOI emails reveal threats to climate scientists. on its website (this story subsequently corrected on 21 May).

Can you please confirm whether there was in fact any consultation between ABC News and ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. On face value it seems there was no consultation at all. How else do you explain the timing?

Thursday, May 24, 2012

This blog gets a mention in a report in today's Australian (The Science is in: we were right on death threat emails) that follows up on Media Watch's misleading broadcast on Monday. The Oz's Chris Merritt outlines point by point where Media Watch failed to accurately report on the media's coverage of so called ANU "Death Threat" emails, and where it misrepresented the Australian's reporting. The emails were released following an FOI request to ANU by Simon Turnill and a decision by the Privacy Commissioner. These emails demonstrate that ABC's reporting of June last year and last week was hopelessly in error. Of those emails the Privacy Commissioner (and not "climate change sceptics"-see below) foundthat 10 of 11 documents, all emails, "do not contain threats to kill" and the other "could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat". The "threat" described in the 11th email has since been shown to have been a mis-understanding and over reaction to the production of a shooting licence at an ANU hosted event. See John Coochey's explanation to Media Watch (that was also misrepresented by Jonathan Holmes).

Chris Merritt covers our request for ABC to update its June 2011 story given the appearance of new facts, namely the Privacy Commissioners report and coverage by The Australian. Following The Australian's report of the 3 May I was keeping an eye on ABC News to see whether they would report on it. After nothing appeared after more than a week, I sent this simple question to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs (sent 10/05/12 @ 21:21).

Subject: correct an old storyComments: Last year ABC reported on death threats made to scientists. It now seems these were false. When can we expect a correction or story update?

Here's the reply from the so called "independent" ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs division, who it now seems are now attempting to determine what constitutes news at our ABC (Ed. is that a case of the wag tailing the dog?)

Received Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM

RE: correct an old story

Thank you for your email of 11 May concerning the story “Death threats sent to top climate scientists”.

As your correspondence raised concerns of a lack of accuracy, your email was referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC's editorial standards. In light of your concerns, we have reviewed the story and assessed them against the ABC’s editorial requirements for accuracy, as outlined in section 2 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies:http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/edpols.htm. In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News.

In relation to the allegations that climate scientists at the ANU were subject to threats, the Privacy Commissioner made a finding in relation to the material he was presented with, he did not make, and could not make, a finding about whether there were threats made. The ANU maintains that most of the emails were discarded and of course there is no record of the phone calls or threats that were made in person. As the Commissioner specifically noted: “Correspondence from the ANU to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner indicates that emails and records of calls containing abuse were not generally retained before the FOI request”.

Neither the ANU, the scientists concerned nor scientists from other institutions who reported similar threats, have withdrawn the claims. The implication of your email is that a large number of very reputable scientists fabricated these threats; there is no reason to conclude that that is the case on the basis of the Privacy Commissioner’s finding. Audience and Consumer Affairs does not consider there is a case to correct the stories.

The time on ABC's report on May 11 is First posted May 11, 2012 09:06:07. It seems ABC NEWS decided the story worth covering after all despite considerations from Mr Maley. Its reporting so bad however that the following editorial explanation was required. The explanation and the story still omits to mention what the independent findings of the Privacy Commissioner about the emails actually were. That is that none of the 11 emails were death threats. Instead the ABC suggests it was based on the opinion of Climate change sceptics. And just think our taxes paid for this woeful reporting and the subsequent hopelessly inaccurate and misleading MediaWatch report.

UPDATE(May 21): The release of these emails under Freedom of Information followed reports last year (see related stories above) that ANU scientists had received death threats. Climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Updated from last night.Update: The Australian comments HERE
On tonight's Mediawatch program Jonathan Holmes seemed to suggest the Canberra Times did not report that ANU scientists were subject to death threats. From the transcript Holmes smugly states "But hang on, The Canberra Times article did not report that death threats had been made to academics at the ANU." As a result it suggested that The Australian's recent article on the issue was wrong. That CT article did not specifically mention death threats but these articles from the Canberra Times (Below) from last year did. And based on these, and the absence of any police investigation, the ANU claims are indeed debunked.

The reporting on this issue by all parties is somewhat confused, some of the confusion caused by those involved. As to the other "death threats", we await the outcome of police investigations (Ed Are there any?).

Australian Climate Madness has an update on ABC's flawed death threat reports.
It seems the story has been updated somewhat, with the following editorial comment added to one of its stories:UPDATE (May 21st) The release of these emails under Freedom of Information followed reports last year that ANU scientists had received death threats. Climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat.

We asked Alan Sunderland over the weekend (ABC's Head of News Policy) what happened to a similar story ABC posted on May 16 that also claimed: that released emails " include an email describing a physical threat to use a gun against an academic because the conference participant reportedly disagreed with the climate change research." (The released emails and subsequent reporting shows this is utter BS).

Here's Alan's response received this evening (Thanks Alan):

As far as I can tell, based on advice from Radio Australia, the story wasn't pulled, but it may have been affected by a technical glitch as there are currently some problems with elements of the Radio Australia redesigned site.

Certainly, the same story appears to have been posted to two different places on the Radio Australia site:-

The first one has been up continuously; the second one seems to have a broken link at the moment. But in one place or another, the story remained live on the RA site, as it did on our main site.

Furthermore, in the light of the ongoing controversy over elements of the details, and the contested views put forward about aspects of the story, it has now been updated to provide further information.

The fundamental point, however, remains the same: the ANU reported a year ago that it had received death threats and other abusive and/or threatening messages, and they have confirmed that they stand by this despite the release of the recent emails.

As ACM point out it seems those "Sceptics" include privacy commissioner Timothy Pilgrim!

Sunday, May 20, 2012

The 2011-2012 cyclone season came to a close in April. In October last year the Bureau of Meteorology issued its forecast for the 2011-2012 season. ABC provided some coverage (Here and Here) focusing closely on forecasts for NW Australia. Here's BOM's forecast from last year:

2011-12 Australian Tropical Cyclone Season Outlook

Summary:Above average tropical cyclone activity likely for the Australian region this season

The outlook favours the following scenarios for the coming season:

The whole Australian Region has an 80% chance of having more than the long-term average number of cyclones. The long-term average is twelve.

The Western Region has a 65% chance of observing above average number of tropical cyclones, where the long-term average is seven.

The North-western Sub-region has a 60% chance of above average number of tropical cyclones. The long-term average is five.

The Northern Region has a 60% chance of above average number of tropical cyclones, where the long-term average is two or three cyclones.

The Eastern Region has a 65% chance of observing above average number of tropical cyclones, where the long-term average is three or four.

Table 1 Forecast values for the 2011/12 Seasonal Outlook for Tropical Cyclones (TCs) for the four main tropical cyclone regions and the north western sub-region.

Region

Chance
of above average tropical cyclone activity

Long-term
average

Forecast
skill

Australian
region

80%

12

Very high

Western
region

65%

7

Moderate

North-western
sub-region

60%

5

Moderate

Eastern
region

65%

4

Moderate

Northern
region

60%

3

Low

BOM forecast the number of cyclones in all regions should have been above the long term average. It rated its forecast skill as "Very High". How did it play out???? Here's a map showing tracks of cyclones affecting the Australian region for the forecast period based on reports by the Darwin Regional Specialised Meterological Centre (links to monthly reports below).

Seasonal forecasts are news, but the outcome of those forecasts are news also, especially when the forecast skill is so poor. For the 2011-2012 cyclone season Australia's premier meteorological institute predicted an 80% chance that cyclones would exceed the long term average (12). The actual number of cyclones (8) was 33% below the long term average. Missed it by that much!

Saturday, May 19, 2012

"THE accuracy of the ABC's reporting on climate change has been called into question by an activist who uncovered documentary evidence that undermines one of the national broadcaster's most sensational reports on the subject.

Climate change blogger Simon Turnill told The Weekend Australian the contents of 11 emails he uncovered using the Freedom of Information Act were at odds with last year's ABC report that death threats had been made against climate scientists at the Australian National University.

Then, when the ABC reported on the contents of those emails after they were uncovered, it did so in a manner that he regarded as being incomplete. The ABC neglected to include the key fact that there was no evidence in those emails of death threats at ANU, contrary to previous ABC reports. Mr Turnill said he was disappointed but not surprised because he believed the ABC's approach to climate change "toes the consensus line" and anyone who challenged the orthodoxy received short shrift."

According to the ABC the emails " include an email describing a physical threat to use a gun against an academic because the conference participant reportedly disagreed with the climate change research."

This is Bullshit! The story has now removed from ABC's website following our request for more information, so I guess ABC agree.

We asked head of policy for news, Alan Sunderland for an explanation

Hi Alan,

I note that the article posted on the Radio Australia website on May 16 titled "Climate scientist abuse emails released" in which claims were made (falsely) that released emails " include an email describing a physical threat to use a gun against an academic because the conference participant reportedly disagreed with the climate change research." has been removed from ABC's website. To my knowledge ABC have not provided an on air, or online correction to the false claims made in this report. Is it the ABC's intention to allow these errors to go uncorrected with no apology provided to those falsely implicated?

Can you also please explain why the article was removed and an editorial note was not simply added. I was hoping to link to the article as another example of misrepresentation by the ABC on this issue but it's no longer there. I don't suppose you are able to provide a copy of the full text.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Cover of the Climate Commission's latest report showing the 10 people in NSW currently supported by the state's renewable energy output. Based on the image the report also predicts a bright future for western NSW with climate change bringing forests and mountains you can ride bikes down! It also seems Hay will one day be linked to Sydney via the worlds largest corridor!

The report contains errors, is un-necessarily alarmist, heavily biased, contains distortions and misrepresentations, cherry picks data, fails to take historical extremes into account and relies significantly on the grey literature. Everything you would expect from a political document?

Here are some examples of the above:

Distortion Figure 2-only shows the high end of projections, why not show the full range of model outputs?

Cherry Picking: Box 2 Heat records continue to be set! The highest temperature in 2009 was 46.8 in Menindee in western NSW (site of future forests). The commission fail to state that the state's highest temperature remains 49.7 degrees in Menindee on January 10, 1939. Menindee also holds the 4th highest temperature, 48.6 degrees on 11 January 1939. The top 5 all occur prior 1973. Box 2 also describes the dreaded Nov 2009 heatwave that saw the monthly maximum temperature in Bathurst 7.8 degrees above the average. Odd that the climate commission did not mention the January 1960 heatwave (see HERE for previous discussions). This saw the average monthly temperature in Hillston for January 1960 8.1 degrees above the long term average!

Misrepresentation: Figure 6 is purported to be a bushfire in the Morton National Park. The photo is sourced from Flickr. A quick check shows the photo was taken on March 29, 2009. Note the climate commission have conveniently trimmed the photo to exclude the unburnt area across the road. It seems this photo is of a controlled burn! This was undertaken in the area by NPWS in March 2009. Why does the Climate commission show a man made fire? Bushfires did occur in Morton National Park in January of 2009, why not show a picture from that actual bushfire?

The Climate Commission once again caught playing politics with the truth.

Update Warwick Hughes has more on the Commission's misrepresentation of the Sydney regional temperature data HERE. Extract below.

To sum up how the Climate Commission has been misleading.[1] Shortening the Sydney trend to censor out periods warmer than they want you to know about.[2] Failing to find the well known Richmond RAAF data – which comprehensively ruins their storyline.[3] Leaving a large gap in their Paramatta trend circa 1978 which they should have known was concealing a peak comparable to the last few years. Keeping their storyline intact again.[4] Making all manner of scaremongering statements about heatwaves based on 1,2 & 3..

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Report in today's Australian Newspaper confirms early suspicions: Climate scientists' claims of email death threats go up in smoke"CLAIMS that some of Australia's leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner."
How long will it take ABC to provide an update?

Congratulations to Simon Turnill for persisting with an FOI request that lifted the covers on these exaggerated claims. Congratulations also to the Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim who according to The Australian "was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to "more secure buildings" following explicit threats.In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, "do not contain threats to kill" and the other "could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat".

Update: The Catallaxy Files asks a tough question: The other point to consider is whether the ABC reported (ed-reporter) read the emails before writing the story. If so, why were they reported as being death-threats and if not, why not?

Aim of ABC NEWS WATCH

In a diversifying media landscape news editors face an increasingly difficult challenge reviewing the work of reporters under their supervision. Inevitably some mistakes, errors and substandard articles slip past their critical eyes.

The simple aim of ABC NEWS WATCH is to publicise the errors, omissions, and substandard reports produced by the News service and related entities of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). In doing so we hope to provide an independent check or audit on ABC news articles and in doing so improve the standard of ABC news reporting. After all it's our ABC.

We acknowledge and pay respect to the actions, sacrifice, wisdom, traditions, mistakes and curiosity of our ancestors. Their collective efforts over centuries helped evolve our western civilisation, giving birth to the liberal society that makes this website possible.